66. As the then President, Dame Elizabeth
Butler-Sloss, said in Re T [2004] 2FLR 838,
"Evidence cannot be evaluated and
assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have
regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to
exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the
conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made
out to the required standard of proof."

105. Even in the presence of Jean Clement Yaohirou, Mr
Christie's relationship with the children, at times, was harsh and coercive. He
had known their mother by then for about four months, had assumed a quasi
parent role and taken it upon himself to enforce discipline.

117. There did not appear to be any emotional connection
with what they were saying except that they seemed energised.

• The children's false stories came
about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well
as significant physical abuse. Torture is the most accurate way to describe
what was done by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper.

Thursday, 9 April 2015

MPs lambast civil legal aid reforms

The government’s civil legal aid cuts
were badly researched and implemented, and have impeded access to
justice, an influential committee of MPs reports today.
The House
of Commons justice committee says that the speed with which the Ministry
of Justice sought to save money resulted in the department failing to
meet its objectives for the reforms.

Advertisement

The consequences have been a ‘substantial’ increase in
litigants in person, growing pressure on the courts, a fall in mediation
and troubling reports of ‘advice deserts’.
Since the Legal Aid,
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act took effect there has also
been an underspend because the MoJ did not ensure those who could still
access civil legal aid were able to get it.
The cross-party
committee of MPs says government’s savings were ‘potentially undermined’
by an inability to show value for money for the taxpayer. In particular
the cuts generated ‘knock-on’ costs for courts costs and local
councils.
The MPs also criticise the government’s ‘safety net’ of
exceptional case funding, which has not worked as intended, denying
funding to deserving cases. The report concludes that the Legal Aid
Agency failed to give sufficient weight to access to justice in deciding
which cases merited funding, which may have resulted in miscarriages of
justice.
Lib Dem Sir Alan Beith, committee chair (pictured), said
making savings of £2bn from the departmental budget of £9.8bn was
‘clearly a very challenging target’ which was successfully achieved. But
the savings were rushed through too quickly to understand the full
consequences and prepare for the knock-on effects.
The criticisms are contained in a report on the impact of changes to civil legal aid introduced under Part 1 of LASPO.
‘Many
of the issues which we have identified and which have been identified
to us could have been avoided by research and an evidence base to work
from, as well as by the proper provision of public information about the
reforms,’ the report concludes.
‘It is therefore crucial that, in
addition to the various remedial steps which we recommend in the short
term, in the longer term the ministry work to provide this information
and undertake the requisite research so a review of the policy can be
undertaken.’
The committee recommends that the MoJ undertake a
public campaign to combat the widespread impression that legal aid is
‘almost non-existent’.
MPs want staffing changes for the
exceptional case funding scheme, having been ‘surprised’ that
applications are not currently determined by officials with specialist
knowledge.
On domestic violence, the committee cites concerns
about the 24-month time limit for producing the evidence necessary to
qualify for legal aid. MPs recommended a new amendment to give the LAA
discretion to allow evidence if domestic violence happened more than two
years ago.
The committee did not accept the ministry’s assurance
that it was monitoring whether vulnerable people can still access legal
aid, as there was ‘ample evidence’ that funding was not reaching those
most in need.
The committee also urges the government to drop its
appeal over the legality of its residence test, which limits legal aid
to people with a ‘strong connection’ to the UK.
The report adds:
‘We question whether pursuing an appeal in the “residence test” case is a
good use of public money. It seems to us that the residence test is
likely to save very little from the civil legal aid budget and would
potentially bar some highly vulnerable people from legal assistance in
accessing the courts.’
An MoJ spokesperson said the government
worked closely with organisations that provide advice and offer early
intervention in disputes to ensure they have the full information they
need to help people, and there is a dedicated 24/7 online service to
help people understand if they qualify for civil legal aid and where
advice is available if they do not.
He added: ‘We are keeping
these reforms under close review and have already made changes to
address issues raised. We are also undertaking a comprehensive research
programme to better understand why people choose to go court and how
they deal with legal problems.’
Law Society president Andrew
Caplen said: ‘We support the justice committee’s call for an urgent
review. The Society has consistently warned the government of the
dangers of its civil legal aid policies. This report adds to the growing
dossier of evidence proving that the legal aid changes have failed to
meet the government’s own objectives.
‘There is no doubt that
people are being denied access to justice. Recent research has shown
that many domestic violence victims are being failed by the system as
they face tough evidence requirements before they can even receive
advice and assistance under the legal aid scheme. This goes far beyond
what parliament ever intended.
He added: ‘The report highlights
that even for cases where parliament intended that legal aid should be
available, the system is not working, and people are being denied the
help they need. This is having a significant knock-on cost for the
public purse, as well as a devastating personal impact on people who
cannot get help.’

Readers' comments (6)

Andrew Benington12 March 2015 01:47 am

Denying
people access to justice gives power to the world's bullies, and
that's what is happening in the workplace, in tenant and landlord, in
benefits.
I'm old enough to know actions don't have one single consequence,
they spread out, set up events and change lives far in to the future.
The grown ups of the 30s, 40s and 50s made huge sacrifices to create a
fairer society, to curtail the power of the bully, to rid us of
corruption. We're making a mistake abandoning that cause.

Arthur Robinson12 March 2015 07:54 am

i
note that there is in the report an over-emphasis on the worth of
mediation. it is pitched as a direct alternative to "court battles" as
if going to a solicitor necessarily entails a trial. the truth is most
divorce cases are resolved through solicitor assisted negotiation and
only 10% go to trial. honest information to the public about their
options would be appreciated instead of repetition of the mediation
myth.

Anonymous12 March 2015 12:21 pm

Andrew
is spot on. Undoubtedly, the reforms have hit litigants' hard. It seems
that the paradigm is shifting towards the rich, in that only the rich
can 'afford' justice. Fees are increasing (evidenced by the 5% levy) and
the ability to get legal aid has demised.

The cuts have failed to provide support to those who need it most,
setting the stone for the wealthy - almost making them untouchable. Many
litigants-in-person simply do not have a disposable income to be
running up extortionate legal fees - whether or not their claim is one
of great substance. Instead, litigants' are scared. Litigants' are
denied the right to fair justice. Litigants' remain unrepresented.

After all, on the the nation's constitutional standpoints is held
within the Magna Carta 1215: "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or
delay right or justice." -- an averagely prudent layperson can spot the
demise.

Anonymous13 March 2015 08:20 am

i.e. everything that everyone with any knowledge of the Legal Aid and courts system said at the time has come true.
Paul Hawkins

Anonymous13 March 2015 12:11 pm

Not
only did MPs lambast legal aid reforms they went on to suggest there
should be a consultation on the proliferation of Mackenzie Friends (paid
and unpaid). Not surprisingly, the LSB Consumer Panel chair is against
this - Mackenzie Friends who are not legally qualified, have no duty to
the Court and who probably do not have PII should not be regulated
(according to her) yet we qualified lawyers must be regulated to within
an inch of our lives!

Martin Maloney13 March 2015 08:48 pm

If
the "grown-ups" (and some not quite grown up) in the 30s and 40s had
been asked what they were "making huge sacrifices" for, I doubt whether
many would have replied: "To rid us of corruption, to secure free legal
advice for all, to keep court fees down". I suspect their hopes might
rather have been directed to preserving the sovereignty and distinction
of their country - a cause not very fashionable today. But some of them
are still alive, and still grown up. Mr Benington can ask them.

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

FAO: Mr Jackson of Panorama - My statement on a programme
you say you are doing on Chris Fay

On 21 December 2012 I was forced to put a set of documents
on www.legalaidcuts.blogspot.com.
The documents consisted of court exhibits from a 1982 court case regarding a
raid at Elm Guest Hse.

The documents were namely: a signing in book, a receipt
book, a book where the names of guests and the rooms they stayed in were
clearly marked out and some evidence of VIP business bookings.

Aside from this 1982 court evidence, I obtained while
working as development officer of the National Association of Young People in
Care, I did not have my own notes on the case apart from what I had already
published on www.youthparliament.co.uk
on many of the cases, as NAYPIC had been raided in 1993.

During the seizure of the NAYPIC files, and contents of the
organisation’s Camden office, most of my casework notes were taken by
unidentified men arriving in unmarked vans. I did, however, retain a number of
files as I arrived during the raid of the office and seizure of
documentation.

Among these were the notes of a former volunteer, a Labour
councillor for Greenwich, Mr Christopher Fay. These were more elaborate than my
own in that Fay named abusers and how they were allegedly connected, according
to pieces Fay had put together with his journalist contact, John Oakes, and
were based on meetings between Carol Cazier, owner of the Elm House Guest
House, held at NAYPIC where she spoke to me in my office, and where Mr Fay had
access to her.

I believe the information I was told by Carol Cazier is
responsible for the demise of the organisation. It led also to the drugging and
rape of one of its workers and perhaps the killing of two others.

By 2012 it had been some time since these events and I had
meanwhile established two successful art galleries. I could not understand why
so many years later the issue had raised its ugly head again.

In 1990 I had asked Christopher Fay to leave NAYPIC
following a conversation with a senior colleague official, about his
untrustworthiness. During this exchange I was advised in the strongest terms to
disassociate NAYPIC from Mr Fay.

Christopher, an adult advisor, Sarah a NAYPIC management
committee member and I had co-written a NAYPIC publication called, Abuse in the
Care System, and another document called, The Therapy of Fear, the compilation
of which had offered him unlimited access to the organisation’s case files.

Mr Fay was bitter when I sacked him and I believe remains
so, due to events that have later transpired. He has appeared hostile towards
me. I do not know Fay, Tom Watson, Exaro or those sensationalising these events
without due process or presenting of evidence in a court of law.

I did not have the permission of my clients and service
users, to whom I have a duty of confidentiality under the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984, to give the NAYPIC files to the police.I believed that the files were of
public interest and that the files contained some evidence that may be helpful
to substantiating allegations of abuse. Due to my duty to
protect the confidentiality of victims named in the files I objected to the
files being taken from me.

I am saddened that Elm Guest House victims have not had
justice.The raid by police on my
house, during which my files were removed, has so far not proved helpful in
achieving justice for victims.I
have worked tirelessly to give these people justice as you can read on Youth
Parliament website. I feel that I have been hijacked at a point when there was
an opportunity to establish a class action.

About Me

I would like those who know about abuse to break ranks, whether you are in a society or club or are the head of state I believe you care. So show it. Take direct action on the internet, start a petition under an alias, explode in your own PR very significant abuses in all of our human rights, if you are that clever then educate and give us all a chance to participate but do not do nothing... for when they screw your grand child you will be blamed as an apathetic generation who did nothing even though you knew.. BREAK RANKS THEY DO NOT CARE - ABOUT You and there is always something you CAN do... BREAK RANKS... BREAK RANKS and You yes You too all of you, just do it and be proud to... you owe it to yourself finally